1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured What else do members hold in agreement with Papists?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by agedman, Sep 25, 2015.

  1. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    175
    I get the feeling you're baiting, but I'm not going to argue. I'm simply trying to explain. But, maybe God will change the way He deals with man, and a new "dispensation" will be born. I don't claim to know the mind of God, and I don't claim to have perfectly and unmistakably translated all of prophecy. But, as I said, there's no reason (that I see) to think He will until either the rapture, millennial kingdom, or new earth, depending on what you believe.

    My whole point is that dispensationalism is not what OR keeps saying it is. It is simply a way to look at history, dividing it into eras based on the ways God has changed His dealings with man in regards to His revelation.
     
  2. Thousand Hills

    Thousand Hills Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    6
    Your giving me too much credit to think I am baiting you. Question though, do you believe the H.S. will be removed after the rapture?
     
  3. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    175
    That's a good question, and one I'd be happy to discuss in another thread if you'd like. This thread has been totally derailed, and I'd prefer not to play a part in its further de-railment. (My apologies to the OP for my helping to derail so far).

    Simple answer: I don't know. I'm still looking into it.
     
  4. Thousand Hills

    Thousand Hills Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    6
    Do you care to start a thread on it? :type: I'll check in later.
     
  5. Sapper Woody

    Sapper Woody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    175
  6. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,283
    Likes Received:
    842
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There are songs that the typical Baptist church might sing (provided they still sing something written more than a year ago :) ) that were written by Papists with the direct purpose of exalting the papist views.

    For example:

    "Faith of our Fathers" written by Fredrick Faber

    The song purposely exalts the Catholic martyrs and in particular those during the English transition from Roman Catholic to Church of England.

    Some will view the song in a more agreeable sense of considering it applicable to the believers who were martyred by the Papists. However, the author of the lyrics was very specific as to the application when he wrote the words.

    Bet you go through the day singing the tune (St. Catherine in the U.S. and Swanson for those across the puddle). :)

    Baptists that are aware of this Papist connection will sometimes prefer these words to the same tune. It is a far better text to sing that what Faber wrote.

    Jesus, They Boundless Love to Me
     
  7. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    9,147
    Likes Received:
    1,587
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I have nothing in common with the Papist... You need to check your history... They tried to wipe out the Huguenots, the Lollards, Anabaptist, and the Waldenses... I know what you are saying well that was then... You know what they say about history?... Brother Glen
     
  8. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    I posted supposed history showing that pre-trib-dispensatlionalism can be traced to RC people attempting to imitate RC.
     
  9. SovereignGrace

    SovereignGrace Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 31, 2015
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    883
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The RCC and Papists hold to free will....
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    The amillennial view comes from a correct understanding of Scripture!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,283
    Likes Received:
    842
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Like I said, the a-mil view is basically a papist doctrine in which they do not hold themselves accountable for their link to the enemy in the end times.

    That YOU view it is "a correct understanding of Scripture" is in no way obligating me to agree.

    Perhaps you can start a thread showing how the start and propagation of the a-mil view was not linked to the Papists founders.

    That would certainly be an interesting thread.

    Perhaps in that thread you can demonstrate how Polycarp was not pre-mil. Certainly, the most noted disciple of the Apostle John would be a-mil if John had considered that the appropriate view. Of course, Polycarp was pre-mil, and your denial of the facts is well noted.
     
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    agedman.

    I understand that by your continual posts about the RCC and those who hold the amillennial view of eschatology that you are trying to slime those like me. Doesn't bother me a bit. I have lived in the midst of the "rapture ready folks" since 1960.

    Even though I spent several years studying and teaching in a university I was naive. I thought the only people who believed in a literal 1000 year reign were the Watchtower folks; the Jehovah's Witnesses {or "no-hellers" as they were known in the coalfields, and amongst Old Regular Baptists, where I was raised}. I was greatly surprised when I learned that mainline Christians like Southern Baptists held similar views after GOD saved me in 1965.

    First: You should know that Baptists did not come from the RCC and there is nothing in Baptist churches that smacks of an RCC origin as there is in Protestant Churches.

    Second: You should know that pre-trib-dispensationalism was not conceived until about 1830; long after the Baptist Church was tolerated among the Protestant groups. Pre-trib apologist Dr Thomas Ice names "John Nelson Darby" as the Father of "pre-trib-dispensationalism"? {http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/ttcol.html}
    {http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

    Third: You should also understand that the 1800's gave birth to the Seventh Day Adventists, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and as noted above, pre-trib-dispensationalism, among other groups.

    Fourth: You should also understand that history shows that the RCC promulgated early on some doctrines held by pre-trib-dispensationalism in an attempt to blunt the impact of the Reformation. {http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/jesuit-end-times-antichrist-deception/}

    Fifth: You should understand that the doctrine that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, fails its mission and its pre-trib removal is not the historic Baptist doctrine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,283
    Likes Received:
    842
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Are you not rapture ready? Sad, if you aren't.

    It is a marvelous work of God to save a blasphemer and denier of the faith as I was. I rejoice the Father would grant any to be saved, me the least of all.

    However, as this thread has uncovered, there are some areas in which the two hold common ground - I don't, but the typical SBC may. In fact, FBC Plano, TX had the pulpit supplied by the St. Marks (if I recall the church) priest on a Sunday, and the people were so enthralled, they desired him to be invited back, again. Not much separation there, I would say.

    Spout all you desire about Darby, I already showed how he took from others. But that doesn't matter, because the "pre-trib" views may or may not be held by those who are Pre-Mil. It is simply a scheme that can be applied or not to the Pre-Mil doctrine. That you desire to see them as a single entity is not correct. There are those who are Pre-mil who are not pre-trib.


    You are attempting to use guilt, by associating a block of time to some development of a scheme. I could just as well lump the Civil War, Spanish - American war, Wounded Knee, California Gold Rush, Texas Independence, Louisiana Purchase, ... into the same time period and come up with some far fetched thinking, too.

    Frankly, I have looked over some of the information and cannot find much if any supporting documents for the contention that the pre-trib views (much less that of the Pre-mil doctrine) are actually founded upon some grand conspiracy by the RCC.

    Especially when the Pre-Mil doctrine has been around for over 2000 years as evidenced by the teachings of the Apostles and Polycarp.

    So, unless there is more first hand documentation that person can offer to support the conspiracy claims he makes, I don't put much credit in this person's writings. Just creating a story is not documentation.

    Actually, Pre-mil doctrine IS the historic view of the Baptists. The "church" failure in which you fear, is EXACTLY what the Lord Jesus taught. The current world system will NEVER be a friend to the church, and most certainly two world wars did not enhance human kindness any better.

    What WILL the a-mil folks find? That the one world peace of the first years of the tribulation will only be a trick and bring confusion by the enemy.

    Here is my problem with what you are trying to discredit.

    First, I have shown FIRST hand evidence that Polycarp was a student taught by the Apostle John.

    Second, it is the account by nearly EVERY historical and biblical scholar that Polycarp was Pre-mil.

    Third, the Apostle John would NEVER tolerate error among his students and especially one what would become the very epitome of scholarship, Christian character, church leadership, and steadfastness in the faith even to this day.

    Fourth, you consider "pre-trib" is "pre-mil" and that is just not correct. Pre-trib can be a view held along side Pre-mil, but the basic Pre-mil position is that Christ physically returns to the earth and rules while the enemy is bound for a literal 1000 years.

    When the "rapture" occurs is (imo) a secret in which only the Father has knowledge. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."

    So, OR, it comes down to you attempting to discredit what is doctrinal, and place credit upon that which is in error.

    Consistently and from the beginning, the Papists have propagated the a-mil view - that is a historically accurate statement.

    Consistently the Papists have done so (imo) because they cannot come to terms with their alignment with the enemy of Christ, and the blaspheming corruption to the truth of the Scriptures.

    Being Pre-mil is one standard and area of separation from the Papists, and one that should be held by every Baptist, but sadly isn't.
     
  14. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    257
    Faith:
    Baptist

    It is my understanding that the A-millennial view actually has it's origins in the Reformation, as least as far as gaining a huge following. It was a new doctrine created, ironically enough...to separate themselves from the doctrine held by Catholicism.

    I was shocked to learn this after having had many conversations with Catholics concerning end time events and interpretation of Prophecy, because all of them, not most, but all of them spiritualize many texts which eradicate the teachings found in passages utilizing figurative literature.

    It goes kind of like this: Satan is not literally a dragon hence...there is no Satan. And while that is an exaggeration of their interpretive pattern, it sums it up fairly well.

    "Well, a thousand years doesn't really mean a thousand years...Peter tells us that!"

    lol

    But if we look at Church History the premillennial view begins first with Scripture, and despite what men taught after that...that is never going to change.

    While a thousand years may be a day to God, and a day a thousand years, I can guarantee Satan will not see it that when he is bound for that thousand years.


    God bless.
     
  15. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    8,877
    Likes Received:
    257
    Faith:
    Baptist
    This is something I can't understand: a denial of the Rapture, which is clearly a First Century teaching of Paul.

    That is why the views which diminish prophecy are rejected by those who are forced to leave all of Scripture intact.

    There is no denial that the Bible teaches the Rapture, the only legitimate argument arises in regards of timing.


    Teaching what? I'd be curious to know.


    A literal thousand years is derived from Scripture itself, not from JWs, not from Baptists.

    That's the irony: now Catholics have embraced a similar interpretive approach. While Catholic Doctrine might not be considered a-millennial, there are certainly many Catholics who are hyper-figurative.

    And if we go into many Protestant Churches today, we will see similarities to the Catholic Church. Visited a Methodist Church once (once), where I witnessed Communion which taught trans-substantiation.

    Perhaps your fellowship does not have similar characteristics, but you cannot say none of them do.

    R.C. Sproul points out that the Reformation is called the Reformation...not the Renovation. Luther only meant to reform Catholicism, not start another entirely different denomination.

    Have you ever read the 95 Theses? Read it sometimes and show me how non-Catholic Luther was.

    Here are a few highlights:

    • The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
    • The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
      • Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
      • But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
      • Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.

    Not off to a good start, but, it only gets worse...

    Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.

    Sorry, no. This is like saying "The Cross of Christ was not conceived until circa AD32."

    The Pre-Tribulation Rapture, like all sound doctrine, is derived from the very pages of Scripture.


    Long before Darby and Ice Christians named Paul their father who taught them not to listen to the false doctrine of those who confused them in regards to the Rapture.

    ;)

    Long before these groups emerged we see that many in America were deniers of Christ's Deity and Doctrines which are historically orthodox Biblical Views.

    Some of them we call...founding fathers.

    These groups are not new in Doctrine, simply utilizing false doctrines held by many before them.

    The original no-hellers...Sadducees.

    Hope you didn't teach history.


    Don't need to see the link to believe this, as a pre-millennial view would have been the view held by Catholics at that time.

    So we see the doctrinal view which is new is...the amillennial view.

    Kind of ironic you go around charging Pre-Tribulational believers with embracing something new.

    And the difference between us, OR, is that we can actually take people to Scripture and show why we believe what we believe. While it is true the average Pre-Tribulational believer is not as well taught as they could be, at least being confused on Scripture still stands above rejecting, nullifying, and corrupting Scripture to suit a new doctrine.

    That what them there no-hellers did, fella.

    Another false charge. It's a contrived argument which is necessary because you can't debate the Scripture's themselves. Pre-Tribbers' views don't center on the Rapture, they center on Christ.

    And the only one I see spending all their time on this subject is you.

    Another irony? Or would we use another word for it?


    God bless.
     
Loading...